Ars Technica contacted Ubisoft to ask about the issue, and we were told that the issue wasn't simply a server malfunction. "This 'failure' was due to a massive DDoS attack on our servers," an Ubisoft spokesperson told Ars. "Our servers didn't go down but 5 percent of the overall people attempting to connect received denial of service errors. This is, of course, unacceptable and our teams are working around the clock to ensure it doesn't happen again."

The issue of pirates playing the game also gets short shrift. "Neither Assassin's Creed II nor Silent Hunter 5 are cracked at the time we speak. As mentioned previously, 'cracked' versions are incomplete... as in missing whole parts of the game and crucial features," the spokesperson continued. That means that with just the data from the disc or your download, you won't be able to play the game. The content requires whatever the Ubisoft servers are giving it.

Ubisoft leaves us all with a reminder that no matter how intrusive or failure-prone it is, DRM isn't going away. "We worry about our customers and apologize to anyone who couldn’t play ACII or SH5 yesterday. All in all, we hope people understand all this is done to preserve the future of PC gaming."

So, does Ubisoft think that a DOS attack is a good excuse for this? I loved the quotes around the word 'failure'. If they make a system where you have to connect to their server to play your single-player game, then they should take measure to make sure this doesn't happen. Your system failed, it is a failure, no matter who you blame it on.

Also, the "All in all, we hope people understand all this is done to preserve the future of PC gaming", is pretty offensive. PC games with no\little DRM at all have made a big profit over and over again. Sure, all games get pirated, but those pirates weren't going to pay anyway. Ubi touts releasing Prince of Persia without DRM, and claim that didn't do as well as expected because of piracy. It was a mediochre game that doesn't really fit into the PC market. The greatest DRM ever wouldn't have stopped it from performing poorly.

Glad to see they can't keep it up two weeks without failure. This should be a huge sign for Ubisoft to stop requiring a connection, but apparently they're being quite optimistic about it, and not very concerned with keeping their customers online. They already got their money, right?

Happily I went with the PS3 version but stuff like this is driving me further away from the PC as a gaming platform. If it wasn't for RTS games and WoW I could probably get away with an integrated graphics chipset!

It doesn't matter if it was a DOS attack, a glitch, or simply high demand; the fact remains, gamers were unable to play a game that they bought and paid for due to an incredibly stupid design decision on the part of the publisher. And don't give me this "5%" stuff, I don't buy it.

Sucks if you have a dial up in countries where even local calls are charger per minute, like here in Denmark.

Uh, I admit I have no clue if anyone still used dial up actually, as it would be kinda daft.

edit:

I thought the 5% number was weird too. Are people assigned to set servers? And one of thoose set servers crashed?

World of Warcraft uses set servers because you play with the same set of people each time you log on, but if all it does is validate the game (and deliver content), why would it just not roll over to a responsive server when one fails?

Reading the news about this might be more fun than the games themselves (especially since people can't always play them)

It would be interesting to know: how modular is the content served up by the servers? Besides the save/load mechanism is there any other non-static content? By non-static, I mean content that is different for every user (even if they are at the exact same checkpoint in the game). I could easily see Ubisoft serve up the video for the cut scenes (slowly downloaded over this constant connection). A more complicated data feed however seems less plausible. If there is not such content and the communication is not heavily encrypted, there is a good likelihood a local save/load/content server will be made (after said content has been downloaded form Ubisoft's servers).

That didn't take long, did it? It probably goes without saying that the attack was done to prove a point. I disagree that the reason doesn't matter; it matters a lot. Someone (or some group) decided to very clearly illustrate the problems with this DRM scheme, and they succeeded. How many "I told you so" instances will it take before this goes away, I wonder?

And yeah, inconveniencing customers "for the sake of the future of PC gaming" is disingenuous. "All in all, we hope people understand all this is done in an attempt to shore up our profits" is more accurate.

Probably the best response is to simply ask for a refund for the game. This will cost all participants the most hardship, as they must pay time/resources to completely refund your money. Always speak with your dollar, it is the clearest way to let companies know of your discontent (Better Business Bureau and Attorney Generals are close second and third.)

In fact, I find it a very offensive comment. Many people predicted this server failure would happen, and they're being incredibly blasé about the whole thing. A guy I know who bought AC2 is threatening legal action for a fraudulent sale (which it is - he bought a game in good faith and it didn't work, with all liability on Ubisoft's end).

That means that with just the data from the disc or your download, you won't be able to play the game. The content requires whatever the Ubisoft servers are giving it.

So, in a year or two when Ubisoft decides to take the ACII content server offline, the game will never work again. Good to know. Count me in the "Never buy UbiSoft products again" camp.

i suspect the people in suits are watching in horror as people use dosbox and similar to continue to play games released back in the 80's and 90's, and want to avoid that with more recent releases. Planned obsolescence and all that, as one cant keep the consumerist system going if the products sold do not break down somehow...

btw, it just dawned on me that ubisoft have basically recreated shareware, only worse (no free first part)...

And yeah, inconveniencing customers "for the sake of the future of PC gaming" is disingenuous. "All in all, we hope people understand all this is done in an attempt to shore up our profits" is more accurate.

Because companies are there to donate their games to the public, right? Let's not be naïve here.

The DRM is almost ideological here. Ubisoft doesn't want its games to be pirated. Who cares about "good will" and all of that other stuff? If it moves more units and prevents piracy then it's a win for them all around.

As a game developer I must say that I'm glad that Ubisoft is showing gamers why DRM is a patently stupid idea by implementing such a draconian scheme which then falls flat on its face.

My company won't use DRM for exactly this reason. We do use license keys, but only because we needed some way to verify that someone has bought the game when they register for the additional (free) online services.

That means that with just the data from the disc or your download, you won't be able to play the game. The content requires whatever the Ubisoft servers are giving it.

So when will the pirates just authenticate a single copy to get the needed files and distribute a crack with those files included as well.

i suspect its a case of staged downloads, so the crackers would have to basically play the game (or at least figure out how to tell the server "done with this, send me the next part"). Basically shareware, without the first part given away for free...

"All in all, we hope people understand all this is done to [strike]preserve[/strike] eliminate the future of PC gaming [so we can concentrate on console gaming and make it so there is no more community content and we can charge you for every new level, etc.]"

It used to be that all a game required was a reasonably decent computer. I'm willing to jump through a few hoops, but once the game is a PITA to deal with, I don't want it any more.

Game developers and publishers, when the pirates are having more fun than your legitimate customers, there's something wrong with your DRM.

Ubisoft should have learned from its Starforce fiasco a few years back. I'd have liked to have picked up Assassin's Creed II, but I won't due to the DRM. I've stopped buying EA games, even ones without DRM, due to their limited installs DRM on Spore.

At the same time, if I was a software pirate and I saw this ultra-restrictive DRM as a serious threat to my business, the DDoS route would make total sense. Launch the attack to make the customers put pressure on the developer to remove the DRM mechanism.

I don't care if their server room is swallowed up by a sinkhole, struck by a meteor, hacked by leprechauns; for an offline game to be unplayable because their servers are unavailable FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER is entirely unacceptable.

What I'm wondering is there sales, because its wrong to say that people who pirate won't buy the game anyway and naive. I have two friends who pirate and when they were either banned(xbox 360) or unable to pirate they both bought the game, because they still want to play the game. Saying that, if Ubisoft is making more money from lower customer base but more legit buyers, which will increase when people finally realize DRM is to stay, and those who are holding out will 100% of them not buy AC3, probably not, for that reason DRM may stay.

>>dragosani wrote:>>I purchased Assassin's Creed.>>>>>>I will not be buying Assassin's Creed 2 because of the DRM.>>>>-1 Paying customer

>I paid $5 for my copy of AC1. The price of AC2 would probably have to fall to similar to entice me on PC.

Won't happen. By the time ACII is $5 the servers will be offline (As ACIII will be out) and ALL ACII discs, new or used will be useless. How many people will pay $5 for this from a bargain bin, only to find out it doesn't work anymore?

You cannot buy AC2, at any price. You can only pay to borrow it on Ubisofts conditions, which they can unilaterally change anytime. No thanks, not now, not ever.

I was really interested in AC2, but after hearing of the DRM scheme I immediately crossed it off the list.

All this extreme DRM crap does is kill off PC gaming. Why would you make your product that failure prone? DRM at best keeps a small percentage of people from pirating your game... and invariably pisses off your legit customers.

The game has a fully functional crack by SKIDROW. A lot of people are having trouble advancing to further missions even if they are not using the crack and connected to the Ubi servers. The mission progression problems are due solely to Ubisoft's crap code. Check out the Silent Hunter 5 forums and you'll see that legit people are having the exact same mission progression issues. Wait, what's that? You can't get to Ubisoft's forums? No, no you can't because they are DOWN ALSO! And not just the Silent Hunter threads...ALL Ubisoft's forums are down.

Edit: my bad, not all of Ubisoft's forums are down. It just takes forever to get to some of them.

Yay they're 100% dedicated to doing something their customers hate! Hey it works for the RIAA why not Ubisoft too.

Hopefully someone at Ubisoft goes and takes an economics 101 class because when you base your business model and the future of your medium on pissing off customers, who are your only source of income, you aren't going to last long at all.

"All in all, we hope people understand all this [pissing customers off] is done to preserve the future of PC gaming [in a museum of epic failures]."

It seems that the goal is to drive people to the consoles. Silent Hunter 5 actually looked really interesting, but because of this ridiculous DRM I passed on it. EmeraldArcana appears to be a troll, but in case not, there is ridiculously intrusive DRM like UBISoft is now using and "barely noticeable and has beneifts" DRM like Steam. Anyone think Valve is hurting because of Steam? It's the kind of DRM many gamers are willing to live with. Sad to see UBISoft go the draconian route (even when the game is released on Steam). I'm actually waiting for a developer to sue the publisher/distributor over lost sales because some ridiculous DRM scheme like this was used.

Saw Silent Hunter 5 on the shelf last week.. Picked up box to buy.. saw Ubisoft logo and remembered DRM.. checked the back of the box.. "constant connection required".. Put box back on shelf... Left store.. I buy pretty much a game a week or so... It's nice to know I can just skip the ones with the Ubisoft logo... Thanks for making my game buying decisions a little easier.